Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja has granted bail to activist and social media commentator, Justice Chidiebere, popularly known as “Justice Crack”, in the sum of ₦5 million.
The court ruled that the bail must be backed by one surety in like sum. The surety is required to reside within the court’s jurisdiction at a fixed address for at least four years and must provide proof of residence through either a tenancy agreement or certificate of occupancy.
The court also directed that the surety must be a federal civil servant not below Grade Level 15, with proof of at least three months’ salary, authentication from the immediate head of department, and evidence of pensionable employment. The surety must also submit an affidavit of means and a recent passport photograph, while the defendant is to deposit his international passport with the court.
During the proceedings, the prosecution informed the court that it was prepared to begin trial. The first prosecution witness, Uruntu Douglas, a DSS operative, testified that the defendant voluntarily made an extra-judicial statement in the presence of his lawyers after investigations linked him to videos allegedly posted online.
According to the witness, soldiers had sent pictures to the defendant, who allegedly created videos from the images and shared them on social media without verifying the materials with military authorities.
The witness further stated that investigators extracted videos, chats with soldiers, alleged conversations about protests, and social media records from the defendant’s phone. He added that a certificate of compliance was issued after the forensic examination.
Defence counsel Sam Amadi, however, argued that the defence had not been served with the investigation report and other documents the prosecution sought to tender. The prosecution described the omission as an oversight and apologised before the court.
Justice Abdulmalik subsequently admitted the DSS investigation report as Exhibit A, alongside an iPhone allegedly recovered from the defendant, a flash drive said to contain social media videos, extracted conversations, and the certificate of compliance.
The defence objected to the admissibility of the flash drive, arguing that its contents had neither been described nor played in open court.
The case was adjourned until May 25 for continuation of trial, with the first prosecution witness yet to be discharged.